511 So. 2d 1207 - State v. Cotton’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently April 2004
23 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Neil v. Biggers · Manson v. Brathwaite · 433 So. 2d 104 - State v. Square · 446 So. 2d 729 - State v. Prudholm
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) The witness's opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; 2) The degree of attention paid by the witness during the commission of the crime; 3) The accuracy of any prior description; 4) The level of certainty demonstrated at confrontation; and 5) The time between the crime and the confrontation.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Patrick · State v. Ball“One-on-one confrontations between a suspect and a victim, while not favored by the law, are permissible when justified by the overall circumstances. Such identification procedures are generally permitted where the accused is apprehended within a short time after the commission of the offense and is returned to the scene of the crime for on-the-spot identification or when identification is made shortly after the commission of the crime. State v. Dauzat, 364 So.2d 1000 (La.1978); State v. Patrick, 31,380 (La.App.2d Cir.10/28/98), 721 So.2d 94 , writ denied, 98-2957 (La.3/19/99), 739 So.2d 780 ; State v. Cotton, 511 So.2d 1207 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1987). Such prompt identification, under appropriate circumstances, promotes accuracy as well as expediting the release of innocent suspects. State v. Williams, 420 So.2d 1116 (La.1982); State v. Bickham, 404 So.2d 929 (La. 1981); State v. Patrick, supra ; State v. Cotton, supra .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Before the exception may be invoked by the State against the defendant, allowing introduction of a permanent record made in the ordinary course of business from personal knowledge of the facts recorded, or from information furnished to one having business duty to observe and report the facts, it must be shown that the person who made the record is genuinely unavailable for testimony, that he had no strong motive to misrepresent, and that in all probability the evidence is trustworthy."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Baker
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.